Cyprus-Forum.com

[boomerang]

double post - bump

[RAFAELLA]

Avci criticized Mrs Bakoyianni for her statement regarding the guarantees noting that the guarantees of Turkey are indispensable for them

Turkish Cypriot daily Afrika newspaper (13.06.08 ) reports that the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mrs Dora Bakoyianni who arrived yesterday in the island, said that there is no need for guarantees in a reunified European Cyprus.

Moreover, Turkish Cypriot daily Halkin Sesi newspaper (13.06.08 ) covers Mrs Bakoyianni’s statements under the banner front-page title “The support to Turkey is not an open cheque”. The paper notes that Mrs Bakoyianni said that the support of Greece and Cyprus is sincere for Turkey’s accession to the EU, but Ankara should fulfil all the criteria demanded by the EU.

Meanwhile, Turkish Cypriot daily Kibris newspaper (13.06.08 ) reports that Turgay Avci, self-styled minister of foreign affairs criticized yesterday the statement made by the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mrs Dora Bakoyianni who said that the guarantees and the intervention rights are “old fashioned”.

Asked to comment on this statement, Mr Avci said that the guarantees of Turkey are indispensable for them. He argued: “If there is good will, if there is no ulterior motive, no one should worry about the guarantees of Turkey, Greece and Britain. However, if there is ulterior motive, if the decade of the sixties is still considered, this means that we are right”.
(I/Ts.)
http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/A ... enDocument

[Kifeas]

VP, its quite simple really. Cyprus will never be a truly democratic country if another country has a legal right to interfere in its affairs. Perhaps you can tell us where else on this earth one country has such a right and then explain why the TCs are so special that they enjoy such privileged "protection". Its been said before but I'm going to repeat it anyway, Turkey had a legal right to intervene in Cyprus in 1974 but it abused that right by expelling one third of the population from their homes. Turkey cannot be trusted with a right to intevene because of what it did in 1974. I have no doubt that the EU will be very aware of the history of the two communities in the event of a fair solution, in fact it would not be unreasonable for the EU to establish a monitoring system for a period.

Jerry, get your facts right! Turkey had NO legal right to invade in 1974! The provision in the 1960 treaty of guarantee, allowing for unilateral intervention rights by the so-called guarantor powers, is effectively nullified by the UN Charter, which prohibits unilateral (or without the approval of the UN security council) military intervention in the territory of another sovereign UN member state! The UN Charter, as an international treaty, stands above any other treaty (article 103 of the UN Charter!)

[Jerry]

VP, its quite simple really. Cyprus will never be a truly democratic country if another country has a legal right to interfere in its affairs. Perhaps you can tell us where else on this earth one country has such a right and then explain why the TCs are so special that they enjoy such privileged "protection". Its been said before but I'm going to repeat it anyway, Turkey had a legal right to intervene in Cyprus in 1974 but it abused that right by expelling one third of the population from their homes. Turkey cannot be trusted with a right to intevene because of what it did in 1974. I have no doubt that the EU will be very aware of the history of the two communities in the event of a fair solution, in fact it would not be unreasonable for the EU to establish a monitoring system for a period.

Jerry, get your facts right! Turkey had NO legal right to invade in 1974! The provision in the 1960 treaty of guarantee allowing for unilateral intervention rights by the so-called guarantor powers, is effectively nullified by the UN Charter, which prohibits unilateral (or without the approval of the UN security council) military intervention in the territory of another sovereign UN member state! The UN Charter, as an international treaty, stands above any other treaty (article 103 of the UN Charter!)

I'm sure lawyers with bigger brains than either you or I would argue Turkey's legal right to intervene. My point is that any country that is subject to intervention by another can never be considered a free democratic sovereign state by any definition. One could therefore argue that the 1960 Constitution was illegal from the outset but then I'm sure others would disagree.

[Kifeas]

VP, its quite simple really. Cyprus will never be a truly democratic country if another country has a legal right to interfere in its affairs. Perhaps you can tell us where else on this earth one country has such a right and then explain why the TCs are so special that they enjoy such privileged "protection". Its been said before but I'm going to repeat it anyway, Turkey had a legal right to intervene in Cyprus in 1974 but it abused that right by expelling one third of the population from their homes. Turkey cannot be trusted with a right to intevene because of what it did in 1974. I have no doubt that the EU will be very aware of the history of the two communities in the event of a fair solution, in fact it would not be unreasonable for the EU to establish a monitoring system for a period.

Jerry, get your facts right! Turkey had NO legal right to invade in 1974! The provision in the 1960 treaty of guarantee allowing for unilateral intervention rights by the so-called guarantor powers, is effectively nullified by the UN Charter, which prohibits unilateral (or without the approval of the UN security council) military intervention in the territory of another sovereign UN member state! The UN Charter, as an international treaty, stands above any other treaty (article 103 of the UN Charter!)

I'm sure lawyers with bigger brains than either you or I would argue Turkey's legal right to intervene. My point is that any country that is subject to intervention by another can never be considered a free democratic sovereign state by any definition. One could therefore argue that the 1960 Constitution was illegal from the outset but then I'm sure others would disagree.

Jerry, for sure lawyers with bigger brains than you, would definitely use sophistries to argue that you are an elephant; while in fact you are a human! I hope they do not manage to convince you that you are an elephant, just because you think they have bigger brains than you!

[Jerry]

VP, its quite simple really. Cyprus will never be a truly democratic country if another country has a legal right to interfere in its affairs. Perhaps you can tell us where else on this earth one country has such a right and then explain why the TCs are so special that they enjoy such privileged "protection". Its been said before but I'm going to repeat it anyway, Turkey had a legal right to intervene in Cyprus in 1974 but it abused that right by expelling one third of the population from their homes. Turkey cannot be trusted with a right to intevene because of what it did in 1974. I have no doubt that the EU will be very aware of the history of the two communities in the event of a fair solution, in fact it would not be unreasonable for the EU to establish a monitoring system for a period.

Jerry, get your facts right! Turkey had NO legal right to invade in 1974! The provision in the 1960 treaty of guarantee allowing for unilateral intervention rights by the so-called guarantor powers, is effectively nullified by the UN Charter, which prohibits unilateral (or without the approval of the UN security council) military intervention in the territory of another sovereign UN member state! The UN Charter, as an international treaty, stands above any other treaty (article 103 of the UN Charter!)

I'm sure lawyers with bigger brains than either you or I would argue Turkey's legal right to intervene. My point is that any country that is subject to intervention by another can never be considered a free democratic sovereign state by any definition. One could therefore argue that the 1960 Constitution was illegal from the outset but then I'm sure others would disagree.

Jerry, for sure lawyers with bigger brains than you, would definitely use sophistries to argue that you are an elephant; while in fact you are a human! I hope they do not manage to convince you that you are an elephant, just because you think they have bigger brains than you!

Ho! Ho!, you should have responded in the jokes section.